{"id":218882,"date":"1979-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979"},"modified":"2016-07-27T23:50:05","modified_gmt":"2016-07-27T18:20:05","slug":"a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979","title":{"rendered":"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. … vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam … on 23 February, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. … vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam … on 23 February, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 989, \t\t 1979 SCR (3) 385<\/div>\n
Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n
Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nA.K.A.CT.V.CT. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM CHETTIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA.K.A.CT.V.CT. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/02\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  989\t\t  1979 SCR  (3) 385\n 1979 SCC  (1) 616\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1987 SC2085\t (3,4)\n D\t    1988 SC1150\t (4,5)\n D\t    1988 SC1636\t (21)\n R\t    1992 SC1526\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\n     Court Fees\t Act, 1870-S.  7(iv)(f)-Suit  for  accounts-\nNecessary for  plaintiff to give fair estimate of the amount\nfor which  he sues-Court can reject the plaint under Or. VII\nr. 11  C.P.C.  if  plaintiff  arbitrarily  and\tdeliberately\nundervalues the relief.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  power\t  of  attorney\t by  which   the   plaintiff\nconstituted the\t defendant  as\this  agent,  authorised\t the\ndefendant amongst other things to discharge debts and invest\nmoneys on  behalf of the plaintiff. In the suit filed by the\nplaintiff,  the\t  relief  claimed   was\t for  directing\t the\ndefendant  to  render  true  and  correct  accounts  of\t all\ntransactions entered into by him and for amounts received by\nhim on behalf of the plaintiff. In his written statement the\ndefendant gave\tdetails of  amounts invested by him in banks\nand other relevant details.\n     An issue  whether the suit had been properly valued and\nproper court-fee  had been  paid was  answered by  the trial\ncourt in favour of the plaintiff.\n     On appeal\tby the\tplaintiff, the\tHigh Court held that\nsince the plaintiff had quantified the amount payable by the\ndefendant, the\tsuit should have been valued on the basis of\namount quantified  and that  not having\t been done, the suit\nhad not been properly valued.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tThe estimate  of the  relief as given by the\nplaintiff was  adequate and reasonable and was not an under-\nestimate. [392C]\n     (2) The  High Court  was in  error in  holding that the\nplaint was  clear, that\t apart\tfrom  the  money  which\t the\ndefendant was  liable  to  pay\tto  him\t as  his  agent\t the\nplaintiff  had\t quantified  the   amount  payable   by\t the\ndefendant. The\tsuit was  not only  for\t accounting  of\t the\namounts received but also for an account of the transactions\nof the\tdefendant  as  power  of  attorney  agent.  Had\t the\ndefendant been\table to\t establish that in the course of his\nmanagement he  had invested moneys according to the power of\nattorney,  he\twould  have   properly\taccounted   for\t his\nmanagement. The\t defendant himself  had stated that the suit\nwas for\t accounting of\this management\tas power of attorney\nagent. He  pleaded that\t the moneys had been remitted to the\nplaintiff by investment or otherwise. [389H-390B]\n     (3) The  amount of\t the court-fee\tpayable in suits for\naccounts as  provided for  in s.  7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees\nAct, 1870  is according to the amount at which relief sought\nis valued  in the  plaint or memorandum of appeal. In a suit\nfor accounts  it  is  not  possible  for  the  plaintiff  to\nestimate correctly  the amount\twhich he  may be entitled to\nbecause in a suit in which the plaintiff asks for accounting\nregarding the  management by  a power  of attorney  agent he\nmight not  know the  state of  affairs\tof  the\t defendant's\nmanagement and\tthe amount  to which he would be entitled to\non accounting. [390G-H]\n386\n     (4) Even  where s.\t 35 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and\nSuits Valuation\t Act, 1955  is applicable,  it is  necessary\nthat the plaintiff should give a fair estimate of the amount\nfor which  he seeks relief. Order VII R. 11 CPC casts a duty\non the\tcourt to  reject a plaint when the relief claimed is\nunder-valued. [391 D-E]\n     Chillakuru Chenchurami  Reddy v.  Kanupuru\t Chenchurami\nReddy, I.L.R. 1969 A.P. 1042 (F.B.), approved.\n     (5) Before\t coming to  the conclusion  that the suit is\nunder-valued the  court will  have to take into account that\nin a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state\nthe exact  amount which\t would result  after taking  all the\naccount. If he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a\ntentative valuation  upon the  suit for\t accounts  which  is\nadequate and  reasonable. The  plaintiff cannot\t arbitrarily\nand  deliberately   under-value\t the  relief.  All  that  is\nrequired is  that there must be a genuine effort on the part\nof the\tplaintiff to  estimate his  relief and\tthe estimate\nshould not be a deliberate under-estimation. [391 H-392 B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 504 of
\n1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 22-12-1978  of the  High Court  of Madras at Madras in
\nAppeal No. 408\/72.\n<\/p>\n
     K. Rajendra Chaudhary for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     A. T. M. Sampath for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     A. V. Rangam for the Intervener.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KAILASAM, J.-Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1021 of
\n1979 is\t filed by  the plaintiff  in the suit O.S. No. 83 of
\n1969 on\t the file  of  the  Subordinate\t Judge,\t Devakottai,
\nagainst\t the   two  orders  passed  by\tthe  High  Court  of
\nJudicature at  Madras in Appeal No. 408 of 1972 holding that
\nthe suit  had not  been properly  valued for  court-fee\t and
\ndirecting the  petitioner to  pay court-fee on the valuation
\nof Rs.\t9,74,598.35 and requiring that the deficit court-fee
\nboth on\t the plaint  and the  memorandum of  appeal be\tpaid
\nwithin six  weeks from the date of the order. On hearing the
\npetitioner we  directed notice\tto the\trespondents  calling
\nupon them  to show  cause why  special leave  should not  be
\ngranted and  the appeal\t allowed and  remitted to  the\tHigh
\nCourt for  disposal  of\t all  the  issues.  On\thearing\t the
\nrespondents we granted Special Leave Petition and the appeal
\nis thus heard.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  filed the  suit  praying  for  a  decree
\nagainst the  respondent\/defendant to render true and correct
\naccount of  all the  transactions of  the respondent  as the
\npetitioner’s agent  from 22nd  January, 1965 and also of all
\nthe amounts  received by  him as the agent of the petitioner
\nincluding the amount recovered by him from Alagappa Chettiar
\nand pay\t to the\t petitioner the\t amount found  due  on\tsuch
\nrendition of accounts. In the written statement filed by the
\ndefendant it was con-\n<\/p>\n
387<\/span><\/p>\n
tended that  the suit  is not  properly\t valued\t and  proper
\ncourt-fee has not been paid. The trial court framed an issue
\nas to  whether the  suit had been properly valued and proper
\ncourt-fee had  been paid. It answered the issue holding that
\nthe plaint has been properly valued and proper court-fee has
\nbeen paid.  The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the
\nground that  the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant
\nis liable  to account  and  that  the  suit  was  barred  by
\nlimitation, On an appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court,
\nthe High  Court found  that the\t plaint made  it clear\tthat
\napart from the money which the defendant is liable to pay to
\nthe plaintiff as his agent, the plaintiff has quantified the
\namount at Rs. 9,74,598.35 as payable by the defendant to him
\nwhich is made clear in allegations in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9
\nof the\tplaint and  therefore the  plaintiff ought  to\thave
\nvalued the  suit at  Rs.  9,74,598.35.\tAs  the\t appeal\t was
\ndisposed of  on the  ground that  the plaint  had  not\tbeen
\nproperly  valued  we  are  concerned  in  this\tpetition  in
\ndetermining whether  the conclusion  arrived at\t by the High
\nCourt is correct.\n<\/p>\n
     The High Court has passed its conclusion on a reference
\nto paragraph 6,7,8 and 9 of the plaint. We will now consider
\nthe pleadings  in the case. In paragraph 5 it is stated that
\non 22nd\t January, 1965,\t the plaintiff\texecuted  a  General
\nPower of  Attorney at Karaikudi authorising the defendant to
\ntransact all  his business, sell his properties, receive the
\nsale price  and other  monies etc.  This paragraph refers to
\nthe General  Power of  Attorney executed by the plaintiff in
\nfavour of  the defendant on 22nd January, 1965. The terms of
\nthe power  of attorney\twill be\t referred to  in due course.
\nParagraphs 6,  7, 8  and 9  of the  plaint which  have\tbeen
\nrelied on by the High Court may be set out :-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “6. On  27-3-1963, the Plaintiff and the Defendant
\n     retired from  the said  partnership and  the other\t two
\n     brothers continued\t the business  under the  same name,
\n     Alagappa taking  on the  shares of\t the  plaintiff\t and
\n     Defendant and  all their  assets  in  the\tfirm  for  a
\n     consideration of  his paying  $ 6,50,000\/-equivalent to
\n     Rs. 16,12,000\/-  at the  rate  of\tRs.  248\/-  per\t 100
\n     Dollars to\t each  of  them,  so  that  Alagappa  became
\n     entitled to 3\/4 share and Annamalai to 1\/4 share in the
\n     continuing firm.<\/p>\n
\t  7. As\t the Plaintiff’s  agent and on behalf of the
\n     Plaintiff, the Defendant on or about 13-4-1965 received
\n     from  Alagappa   $\t  6,50,000\/-   equivalent   to\t Rs.
\n     16,12,000\/- at  the rate  of 248 rupees per 100 Dollars
\n     for the  1\/4th share  of the Plaintiff in the said firm
\n     taken over by Alagappa.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  8. The  Defendant from  Madras  has  sent  to\t the
\n     Plaintiff at  Kottaiyer Rs. 25,000\/- on 25-10-1965, Rs.
\n     1,30,750\/- on
\n388<\/span>
\n     7-2-1966, Rs.  25,311.65 on 7-2-1965 (Rs. 25,000\/- plus
\n     Rs. 311.65\t for interest)\tand Rs.\t 4,36,340\/- on 11-8-
\n     1967.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  9. The  Defendant as Plaintiff’s agent is bound to
\n     render true and correct account to the Plaintiff of all
\n     the amounts  received by  him  in\tthe  course  of\t the
\n     agency, to\t wit, from  22-1-1965 the  amounts  received
\n     from Alagappa.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In paragraphs 6 and 7 the plaint refers to the plaintiff and
\nthe defendant  retiring from  the partnership  and  Alagappa
\ntaking the  shares of  the plaintiff and the defendant for a
\nconsideration of his paying equivalent to Rs. 16,12,000\/- to
\neach of\t the plaintiff\tand the defendant. In paragraph 7 it
\nis stated  that the  defendant as plaintiff’s agent received
\nRs. 16,12,000\/-.  Paragraph 8  refers  to  certain  payments
\nwhich the plaintiff received from the defendant. Paragraph 9
\nof the plaint states that the defendant as plaintiff’s agent
\nis bound to render true and correct account to the plaintiff
\nof all\tthe amounts received by him in the course of agency,
\nto wit,\t from 22nd  January, 1965  the amounts received from
\nAlagappa. It may be noted that the reliefs sought for is for
\nrendering true\tand correct  account to the plaintiff of all
\nthe amounts received by him in the course of the agency. The
\nPower of  Attorney was\tgiven on 22nd January, 1965 and thus
\nthe relief is not confined to the amount payable by Alagappa
\nalone.\n<\/p>\n
     In paragraph  10 which is not taken note of by the High
\nCourt the  plaintiff alleged that on 2nd September, 1967 and
\n4th October,  1967, the\t plaintiff wrote  to  the  defendant
\nrequiring him  to send\tthe accounts  of the  agency.  These
\nletters were  refused. Again  on  5th  December,  1967,\t the
\nplaintiff issued  a lawyer’s  notice to\t render accounts and
\nfor payment  of the  amounts due  from him.  This notice was
\nalso returned. The defendant did not render any accounts. At
\nthis stage  reference may  be made  to the Power of Attorney
\nexecuted by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 22nd
\nJanuary, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff  by the  Power  of  Attorney\t dated\t22nd
\nJanuary, 1965, constituted the defendant as his Attorney and
\nauthorised the\tdefendant to  act for  the plaintiff.  It is
\nsufficient to state that the power authorises in general the
\ndefendant to  manage  all  the\taffairs\t of  the  plaintiff.
\nParagraph 3  of the Power of Attorney empowers the defendant
\nto pay\tand settle all the debts of the plaintiff and obtain
\nfull and  effectual receipts  and  releases  for  the  same.
\nParagraph 5  empowers the  defendant amongst other things to
\nsign and execute any discharge or release in connection with
\nCharges or  Bills of  Sale. Paragraph  10 gives the power to
\nthe defendant  to charge  or mortgage any of the plaintiff’s
\nproperty and  paragraph 11  to borrow such sums of money and
\nupon such  terms  as  the  Attorney  shall  deem  expedient.
\nParagraph 19 confers the power
\n389<\/span>
\non the\tdefendant to invest moneys upon mortgages or charges
\nof land\t etc. In short there can be no dispute that complete
\npower of  management is\t given\tto  the\t defendant  and\t the
\ndefendant could,  in exercising this power, discharge debts,
\ninvest moneys  on behalf  of the  plaintiff  etc.  When\t the
\nplaintiff in paragraph 7 of the plaint demanded the agent to
\nrender true  and correct account to the plaintiff of all the
\namounts received  by him  in the  course of  agency i.e.  by
\nvirtue of  the power  conferred on  22nd January,  1965, the
\nplaintiff is  entitled\tto  know  as  to  what\tamounts\t the
\ndefendant received  during the\tcourse of his management and
\nwhat amounts he had invested or otherwise dealt with. At the
\ndate of\t the plaint  the plaintiff  was not  aware as to the
\namount of  moneys that were due by the defendant to him. The
\nletters and the lawyer’s notice sent by the plaintiff to the
\ndefendant were\tunanswered. If the defendant had invested or
\notherwise dealt with moneys according to the power conferred
\non him\tnothing would  be due  to the  plaintiff on accounts
\nbeing taken.  The  relief  claimed  for\t in  the  plaint  in
\nparagraph 14(a) of the plaint is for directing the defendant
\nto render  true and correct account of all transactions made
\nby the defendant as the plaintiff’s agent from 22nd January,
\n1965 and  also for all the amounts received by the defendant
\non the\tplaintiff’s behalf as his agent including the amount
\nrecovered by  him from\tAlagappa and  pay the plaintiff what
\nmay be\tfound due to him. This paragraph makes it clear that
\nwhat was  required was\tnot only  an account  of the  amount
\nrecovered by the defendant from Alagappa but also an account
\nof all\tthe transactions of the defendant as the plaintiff’s
\nagent from 22nd January, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
     A reading\tof the written statement also makes it clear
\nthat the  plaint was  understood by  the defendant as a suit
\nfor accounting\tof his\tmanagement as  a power\tof  attorney
\nagent. In paragraph 7 of the written statement the defendant
\nstates that  out of 6,50,000 dollars got for the plaintiff’s
\none-fourth share,  40,000 dollars  were\t invested  in  fixed
\ndeposit in  plaintiff’s name  with the Indian Overseas Bank,
\nKuala Lumpur  and 10,000  dollars in  plantiff’s V.  CT.  M.
\nAccounts on  10th April, 1965. On the same day the remaining
\n6,00,000  dollars   were  invested  with  Alagappa  Chettiar
\nhimself who  had credited  the amount  in plantiff’s name in
\nhis accounts.  If the  defendant was  able  to\tprove  these
\ncontentions the\t accounts as required by the plaintiff would
\nhave been satisfactorily rendered and very little would have
\nbeen due  by the  defendant to\tthe plaintiff on accounting.
\nThe High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that
\nthe plaint  is clear  that apart  from the  money which\t the
\ndefendant is liable to pay to him as his agent the plaintiff
\nhas quantified\tthe amount  at Rs. 9,74,598.35 as payable by
\nthe defendant  to him.\tIn our\tview, the  plaint  has\tbeen
\nmisread.  Though   paragraphs  6,  7  and  8  refer  to\t the
\ntransactions in which the
\n390<\/span>
\nplaintiff is entitled to Rs. 16,12,000, paragraphs 10,11 and
\n14(a) make  it clear  that the\tsuit was  for accounting not
\nonly regarding\tRs. 16,12,000 but also for the management by
\nthe defendant  as power\t of attorney  agent. The  power,  as
\nalready noted,\tconfers a  right on  the defendant to invest
\nmoneys. If  the defendant has shown in the written statement
\nitself is  able to  establish that  in\tthe  course  of\t his
\nmanagement he  had invested  moneys according  to the  power
\nconferred on  him, he  would have properly accounted for his
\nmanagement. In\tthe written  statement the defendant himself
\nhad pleaded  that the moneys which he received from Alagappa
\nhave been  remitted  to\t the  plaintiff\t by  investment\t and
\notherwise. The\tconclusion arrived  at by the High Court is,
\ntherefore, unsupportable.\n<\/p>\n
     The provision  relating to\t the levy of court-fee for a
\nsuit on\t accounts is found in section 7(iv) (f) of the Court
\nFees’ Act, 1870 which runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “7. The  amount of  fee payable  under this Act in
\n     the suits\tnext hereinafter mentioned shall be computed
\n     as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)\tx  x  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii)\tx  x  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii) x  x  x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv)\tIn suits-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) x x x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) x x x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (c) x x x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (d) x x x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (e) x x x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (f) for accounts-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\t  According to the amount at which the relief sought
\n     is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.
\n\t  In all  such suits  the plaintiff  shall state the
\n     amount at which he values the relief sought.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Reading this  provision by  itself the\tamount of  court-fee
\npayable in  suits for accounts is according to the amount at
\nwhich  the   relief  sought  is\t valued\t in  the  plaint  or
\nmemorandum of appeal. The plaintiff is required to state the
\namount at  which he  values the\t relief sought. In suits for
\naccounts it  is not  possible for  the plaintiff to estimate
\ncorrectly the  amount which he may be entitled to for, as in
\nthe present  case, when\t the plaintiff\tasks for  accounting
\nregarding the  management by  a power  of attorney agent, he
\nmight not  know the  state of  affairs\tof  the\t defendant’s
\nmanagement and\tthe amount  to which he would be entitled to
\non accounting.\tBut it is necessary that the amount at which
\nhe
\n391<\/span>
\nvalues\tthe   relief  sought  for  should  be  a  reasonable
\nestimate. Section  35(1) of  the Tamil\tNadu Court  Fees and
\nSuits Valuation Act, XIV, of 1955, is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In a\t suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on
\n     the amount sued for as estimated in the plaint.”
\nSub-section (2) of section 35 provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Where the  amount payable  to  the  plaintiff  as
\n     ascertained in  the suit  is in excess of the amount as
\n     estimated in the plaint, no decree directing payment of
\n     the amount\t as so ascertained shall be passed until the
\n     difference between\t the fee  actually paid\t and the fee
\n     that would\t have been  payable had\t the suit, comprised
\n     the whole of the amount as ascertained, is paid. If the
\n     additional fee  is not  paid within  such time  as\t the
\n     Court may\tfix, the  decree shall\tbe  limited  to\t the
\n     account to which the fee paid extends.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While section  35(1) permits the plaintiff to pay the court-
\nfee  on\t  the  amount\testimated  by  him  sub-section\t (2)
\nsafeguards against  the loss of revenue for it requires that
\nno decree  for\tany  amount  in\t excess\t of  the  amount  as
\nestimated  in\tthe  plaint   shall  be\t passed\t unless\t the
\ndifference between  the fee  actually paid and the fees that
\nwould have  been payable had the suit comprised the whole of
\nthe amount  as ascertained,  is paid.  But here\t again it is
\nnecessary that\tthe plaintiff should give a fair estimate of
\nthe amount for which he sues. Order 7, Rule 11, of the Civil
\nProcedure Code,\t requires the  court to return the plaint if
\nthe relief  claimed is\tundervalued. Order  7, Rule 11, runs
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “11. The plaint shall be rejected in the following
\n\t  cases:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  x   x   x\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  where the  relief claimed is undervalued, and
\n\t       the plaintiff  on being required by the Court
\n\t       to correct  the valuation within a time to be
\n\t       fixed by the Court, fails to do so;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  x   x   x\n<\/p>\n
\t  (d)  x   x   x
\nThis section  casts a duty on the Court to reject the plaint
\nwhen the  relief claimed is undervalued. If on the materials
\navailable before it the Court is satisfied that the value of
\nrelief as  estimated by the plaintiff in a suit for accounts
\nis undervalued\tthe plaint  is liable  to be rejected. It is
\ntherefore necessary that the plaintiff should take care that
\nthe valuation is adequate and reasonable taking into account
\nthe circumstances  of the  case. In coming to the conclusion
\nthat the  suit is  undervalued the  court will\thave to take
\ninto account that in a suit for
\n392<\/span>
\naccounts the  plaintiff is  not obliged\t to state  the exact
\namount which  would result after the taking of the accounts.
\nIf he  cannot  estimate\t the  exact  amount  he\t can  put  a
\ntentative valuation  upon the  suit for\t accounts  which  is
\nadequate and  reasonable. The  plaintiff cannot\t arbitrarily
\nand deliberately  undervalue the relief. A full Bench of the
\nAndhra Pradesh\tHigh  Court  in\t a  decision  in  Chillakuru
\nChenchurami  Reddy  v.\tKanupuru  Chenchurami  Reddy,  after
\nelaborate consideration\t of the\t case law on the subject has
\nrightly observed  that there must be a genuine effort on the
\npart of\t the plaintiff\tto estimate  his relief and that the
\nestimate should not be a deliberate under-estimation.\n<\/p>\n
     On a  consideration of  the entire circumstances of the
\ncase we are not satisfied that the estimate of the relief as
\ngiven by  the plaintiff\t is inadequate\tor unreasonable or a
\ndeliberate under-estimation.  In the  result, we  allow\t the
\nappeal set  aside the  judgment of the Madras High Court and
\nremit it  back to  the High  Court for\tdisposal of  all the
\nissues arising\tin the\tappeal. The  cost will\tabide by the
\nresult.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n393<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. … vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam … on 23 February, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 989, 1979 SCR (3) 385 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: A.K.A.CT.V.CT. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM CHETTIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: A.K.A.CT.V.CT. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/02\/1979 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. ... vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam ... on 23 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. ... vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam ... on 23 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1979-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-27T18:20:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. … vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam … on 23 February, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-27T18:20:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979\"},\"wordCount\":2759,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979\",\"name\":\"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. ... vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam ... on 23 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-27T18:20:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. … vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam … on 23 February, 1979\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. ... vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam ... on 23 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. ... vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam ... on 23 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-27T18:20:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. … vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam … on 23 February, 1979","datePublished":"1979-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-27T18:20:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979"},"wordCount":2759,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979","name":"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. ... vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam ... on 23 February, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-27T18:20:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-a-ct-v-ct-vs-a-k-a-ct-v-ct-venkatachalam-on-23-february-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. … vs A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam … on 23 February, 1979"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218882\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}